Sacramento Woman Fights Improper Jury Verdict In Medical Malpractice Case, Part 4 of 5

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

8. Based on the evidence at trial, including the testimony of the experts, and the x-rays, there can be no cause for Plaintiff’s injuries other than the negligent care she received during her May 2009 hospitalization at defendant Regents hospital. The admitting x-ray was misread, and the early acute phase of Charcot clearly visible in the navicular bone, was missed. Therefore, the medically necessary treatment of protecting the foot until the time limited Charcot process quieted down was not provided. Compounding these errors, Plaintiff was told by defendant doctors and other defendant Regents’ employees to walk the long corridor on an unprotected foot during the acute phase. With each step, more bones were breaking and joints were dislocating. These facts, supported by substantial testimony, were uncontroverted.

9. Plaintiff was under the exclusive care and control of defendants at the time of the injuries. There were no intervening causes. In this case, it is not possible to separate the negligence from the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. It is apparent that the jury improperly speculated about some other unnamed and unknown cause that was not part of the evidence presented at trial.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

10. Plaintiff asserts that the jury failed to understand the medical issues here. The Charcot process is time limited, and during the acute phase the foot must be protected from bone fractures and joint dislocations by casting or booting. After the process quiets down and the bones harden again, when the cast is removed a properly treated foot is preserved in its original state, without injury. This is precisely why Plaintiff’s expert orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lee, testified that in order to avoid the catastrophic injuries which Plaintiff now suffers, a foot presenting as Plaintiff’s did must be casted or booted. This explanation, provided by Plaintiff’s expert, was uncontroverted. (See Part 5 of 5.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information